Re: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:58:18AM +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> > From: Job Snijders [mailto:[e-mail]]  > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 11:02 AM
>  > You create a false dilemma stating that it is not clear to you
>  > whether this is a "requirement draft or a solution draft", 
> 
> That editorial point should be easy to address.
> 
> > and that those need to be separate.
> 
> I've not said that.

The use of the word 'or' in your sentence """it's not clear whether this
draft is a requirement draft or a solution draft.""" led me to believe
that you assert the two are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, from the
context it appears that you recommend to abandon 'bgp-reject', start
over with a requirements document, and then see what happens. If this is
not the case please elaborate, and accept my apologies for interpreting
it as I did.

>  > Did you review Alvaro's suggested changes which prompted the third IDR
>  > consultation on this topic? They are viewable here:
>  > 
>  >     http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/jaredmauch/draft-mauch-bgp-
>  > reject/blob/alvaro/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-06-from-5.diff.html
> 
> I was discussing the current version of the draft and comments sent on
> the mailing list (e.g less than 24 hours ago, one author commented
> that it does not believe that this document should be changed to
> update RFC 4271: " I believe that Alvaro is wrong in the presumption
> this document updates 4271. ".
> I was not aware of this private repository. Indeed, this candidate
> version is significantly different than the public one.

The link to the publicly available private repository was meant as a
convenience to you and the WG. It is a verbatim repetition of Alvaro's
suggestions which were emailed to idr@ on April 18th. I hoped to make
Alvaro's comments easier to read by creating the HTML rfcdiff. Did you
perhaps miss that message?

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gU6sk8yrC3uF7aLERwnDh2cuFP4

>  > I'm disappointed that you've taken a CLI example I've provided as
>  > the sole driver behind this effort. I did not mean to offer the CLI
>  > example as an exhaustive list of reasons.
> 
> That this incorrect: I've commented on this driver, plus the ones
> indicated in the draft. What's missing has been authors' answer for
> those requests for clarification.  For the third time, could authors
> please document in the draft the drivers and the goal(s) that this
> document aims at achieving. Then we'll be able to take into account
> all drivers, plus authors will get IDR attention to their operational
> feedback. Should be win-win.

Please review the Introduction section of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.

Should you fail to identify drivers and goals in that section, can you
elaborate what it is you do read in that section? 

I find it hard to believe that the Introduction passed through SECDIR,
RTGDIR, GENART, OPSDIR, and GROW Last Call, and was clear to those
involved, yet you indicate that drivers & goals are not clear, I am not
sure what I can do to further your understanding in that regard.

Kind regards,

Job